Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Alright, this is a serious question. Would you consider a pedophile contacting an under-cover officer online to be entrapment? Because personally, this is kind of the greyest area.

[Adam Griffin]

Alright, this is a serious question. Would you consider a pedophile contacting an under-cover officer online to be entrapment? Because personally, this is kind of the greyest area.

That's sort of what I tried to outline in my last paragraph. If the undercover officer is pretending to be a child and proactively trying to get that person to solicit them for sex, then yes, that is entrapment just as much as any other situation. The fact that it is viewed with much more emotion and passion in terms of the crime being committed does not change the overarching theme, nor does it change the notion that the person in question wouldn't have been capable of committing that specific offense without the authorities interacting in such a manner.

If we really want to draft this law out and add exceptions and provisions that permit this particular type of entrapment while forbidding others, then I am open to that. If, however, we follow Atlasian Senate precedent and don't (and therefore make this an all-or-nothing proposition), then I will continue to oppose allowing any sort of entrapment due to the fact that the vast majority of entrapment scenarios are not "grey areas" as you described.

[windjammer]

If this is not already clear, I'm not going to make my father a 2nd class citizen. Wanting to forbide the right to unionize is a non starter for me.

[TNF]

Alright, this is a serious question. Would you consider a pedophile contacting an under-cover officer online to be entrapment? Because personally, this is kind of the greyest area.

I certainly would. I don't think that police should be enticing anyone to break the law just so they can arrest them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose I should weigh in, at least a little. On the issue of entrapment it is possible to find a workable compromise, I suspect. You ban actual entrapment (i.e. law enforcement coercing - one way or another - someone into making a crime that they would not have otherwise committed), but you allow for legitimate sting operations. I would also suggest that it would be better to allow the courts to distinguish between the two (and so to throw out evidence obtained via entrapment) rather than to bundle the matter in with policing policy.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If someone breaks the law, they break the law. Being "egged on" (by anyone!) is not a defense. Nor should it be. That's where I stand on so-called entrapment. I mean, we can argue about the morals of the tactic, but there actually shouldn't be any argument as to whether the person actually committed a crime. And if they committed the crime, they've got to live with the consequences.

That being said, if we agree to set out some reasonable conditions like the ones Senator Polnut and President bore have mentioned, so be it. But this debate is not about softcocks and pigs. It's about the safety of our communities. If you aren't inciting insurrection deliberately, Senator Griffin, I'd suggest rethinking the way you speak to others in this chamber. People might take you more seriously.

[Talleyrand]

I concur with the President on this; sting operations in and of themselves aren't a bad thing at all, but we need to set reasonable standards so that entrapment for the sake of entrapment doesn't occur.

[windjammer]

The result of the vote on Windjammer's amendment:
Aye (5): Talleyrand, Windjammer, Cris, Polnut, Hagrid
Nay (3): Griffin, TNF, Lief
Non voting (2): Cranberry, SWE

Windjammer's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Adam Griffin]

I offer the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its purpose is relatively simple.

Section 4.8 begins the process of identifying which forms of "entrapment" are allowed and which ones are not.

For instance, no police officer nor civilian operative via proxy would be able to entrap someone for the solicitation of drugs, sex or other potential crimes that do not result in direct and involuntary bodily harm.

Convincing someone to steal specific goods would be prohibited, as the specific act of stealing property would not result in involuntary bodily harm to another individual (excluding separate acts of violence that could occur during such a crime, which could still be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law; however, these auxiliary actions would not occur in these specifically-outlined cases because police forces would be prohibited from putting multiple individuals in this specific situation in the first place).

In the case of potentially still-illegal sex-for-hire cases, both partners are voluntarily consenting to the act and any potential for bodily harm would be voluntary (excluding acts of rape or unconsenting violence, which could still be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law; again, however, these auxiliary actions would not occur in these specifically-outlined cases because police forces would be prohibited from putting multiple individuals in this specific situation in the first place).

In the case of drug use, bodily harm from the consumption of drugs is possible, but not involuntary on the part of the purchaser.

And so on...only crimes in which direct, involuntary bodily harm would inevitably occur (the inability for a child to consent to sexual encounters with an adult, for instance; murder-for-hire; terrorism; etc) would it remain permissible for police forces to engage in such tactics.


Section 4.9 begins the process of outlining under which measures police forces may use unmarked vehicles in their line of work.

Under the proposed amendment, police officers who might decide, "Hey, I'm going to go sit by the side of the road, perform radar checks on people, pull them over in my unmarked car and give them citations" would no longer be permitted to do so.

Police officers who might "want to go sit around at a public park in an unmarked vehicle so they can look for troublemakers or those breaking the law without being detected" would no longer be permitted to do so.

Police officers who are working cases that target a specific individual or individuals for specific crimes (monitoring the movements and actions of John H. Smith of 14732 Main Street, Boulder, CO, who is suspected of running an underground crime syndicate) would be permitted to use unmarked vehicles to track, pursue, gather intelligence on and if necessary, apprehend the specific individual(s) in question without otherwise being detected during the investigation.

[Senator Cris]

I object.

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly.

[Talleyrand]

Is there a clean copy of the bill as it stands now? I'd like to put forth an amendment (although I do support the changes put in by Griffin)

[Cranberry]

Well, it seems this is the bill I missed the most of discussion going on, and many of my points have already been made. Thus, I will retain my input here until after the vote on Senator Griffin's amendment, whereafter I will as well offer an amendment.

I will have to consider Senator Griffin's amendment. The points he makes sure are persuading, yet I am unsure whether or not this does go to far for my taste...

[windjammer]

See my previous message Talleyrand

---------------

I offer the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its purpose is relatively simple.

Section 4.8 begins the process of identifying which forms of "entrapment" are allowed and which ones are not.

For instance, no police officer nor civilian operative via proxy would be able to entrap someone for the solicitation of drugs, sex or other potential crimes that do not result in direct and involuntary bodily harm.

Convincing someone to steal specific goods would be prohibited, as the specific act of stealing property would not result in involuntary bodily harm to another individual (excluding separate acts of violence that could occur during such a crime, which could still be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law; however, these auxiliary actions would not occur in these specifically-outlined cases because police forces would be prohibited from putting multiple individuals in this specific situation in the first place).

In the case of potentially still-illegal sex-for-hire cases, both partners are voluntarily consenting to the act and any potential for bodily harm would be voluntary (excluding acts of rape or unconsenting violence, which could still be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law; again, however, these auxiliary actions would not occur in these specifically-outlined cases because police forces would be prohibited from putting multiple individuals in this specific situation in the first place).

In the case of drug use, bodily harm from the consumption of drugs is possible, but not involuntary on the part of the purchaser.

And so on...only crimes in which direct, involuntary bodily harm would inevitably occur (the inability for a child to consent to sexual encounters with an adult, for instance; murder-for-hire; terrorism; etc) would it remain permissible for police forces to engage in such tactics.


Section 4.9 begins the process of outlining under which measures police forces may use unmarked vehicles in their line of work.

Under the proposed amendment, police officers who might decide, "Hey, I'm going to go sit by the side of the road, perform radar checks on people, pull them over in my unmarked car and give them citations" would no longer be permitted to do so.

Police officers who might "want to go sit around at a public park in an unmarked vehicle so they can look for troublemakers or those breaking the law without being detected" would no longer be permitted to do so.

Police officers who are working cases that target a specific individual or individuals for specific crimes (monitoring the movements and actions of John H. Smith of 14732 Main Street, Boulder, CO, who is suspected of running an underground crime syndicate) would be permitted to use unmarked vehicles to track, pursue, gather intelligence on and if necessary, apprehend the specific individual(s) in question without otherwise being detected during the investigation.

Senators, a vote is now open on Griffin's amendment.
Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[Adam Griffin]

Aye

[windjammer]

I need to think about it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I need to think about it.

[Lief 🗽]

Aye

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[Cranberry]

How long do we have time here on? 72 hours, right?

[SWE]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[Senator Cris]

Nay

[TNF]

Aye

[windjammer]

How long do we have time here on? 72 hours, right?

72 hours. Unless someone else votes Aye or Abstain.

----------
Well, 4.8 is an improvement and I'm glad the police would still be able to go after pedophiles. If that was only this part, I would have voted Aye or Abstain.

However, I do not support 4.9. I don't see what's wrong with that and this is useful in order to arrest bandits etc.

So NAY